"Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost...

If your definition of family includes a beloved pet, keep reading. Maybe it's your child's canine playmate, a kitty companion to an elderly widow or the family's proud horse. Regardless of the origin or relationship, your pet is a member...

(image)
If your definition of family includes a beloved pet, keep reading. Maybe it's your child's canine playmate, a kitty companion to an elderly widow or the family's proud horse. Regardless of the origin or relationship, your pet is a member of your family and dependent on your for all its needs. If anything were to happen to you, can you be assured that your pet would be well-cared for?

Many families are asking me this question. When they create an estate plan to provide for their loved ones, they ask what they can do to provide for their animal dependents as well. Who will care for the animal(s)? Will your pets visit you if you are incapacitated?

Like estate planning in general, the options when it comes to planning for your pet are many and varied. You may create a simple letter of instructions nominating caretakers or a more solid Pet Trust to provide financial support.

However you choose to put the pieces together, the most important component in providing for your pet is choosing a trustee and caretaker who understand and respect your wishes. Having people you trust in those roles are your best insurance.

Pets don't have the same rights as people. This means it's essential that you, the owner, anticipate their needs and provide for them in case of your incapacity or death. No one else will. You pets cannot advocate for themselves. The nomination of a caretaker and a Pet Trust to provide financial support and a clear expression of your wishes is the best insurance you can give your pet.

We all know the importance of annual check-ups. We have our yearly visits to the doctor and dentist, we review our finances at least once a year during tax season, we even take stock of our closets during spring cleaning!...

We all know the importance of annual check-ups. We have our yearly visits to the doctor and dentist, we review our finances at least once a year during tax season, we even take stock of our closets during spring cleaning! To everything there is a season, and your estate plan deserves no less.

(image)
Many people are tempted to think of their estate plan as a one-shot deal, but the truth is that your estate plan is an investment and deserves the same annual maintenance and attention as any of your other investments. In fact, your estate plan is more than an investment of money, it’s an investment in your future, and your children’s and grandchildren’s futures as well.

Take the recent example of Anna Nicole Smith and her out of date Will. Smith’s 6 year old Will leaves everything to her deceased son, and nothing to her living baby daughter. To further complicate things, some of the language in the Will seems to exclude Smith’s future spouses and children. Smith’s Will most likely very adequately expressed her desires for the protection and execution of her estate at the time it was written, but even the best attorneys can’t anticipate how a client’s situation and desires will change in future years.

How often you need to review your estate plan will depend a lot on your family’s personal and financial state of affairs, although not entirely. Families and finances ebb and flow, relationships grow or fall by the wayside, and tax laws definitely change, all of which have a bearing on your Trust, Will, Health Care documents, and others. This means that depending on how in flux your personal/financial situation is, you should be reviewing your estate plan every one to five years.

Every month, the California Bar publishes a list of lawsuit verdicts across the state. Because many people wonder how catastrophic a judgment against them might be, I'm sharing a few. Here are the two most striking May, 2007 judgments: Premises...

(image)
Every month, the California Bar publishes a list of lawsuit verdicts across the state. Because many people wonder how catastrophic a judgment against them might be, I'm sharing a few.

Here are the two most striking May, 2007 judgments:

Premises Liability

You can be liable because you own the property.

Judgment: $4,057,354

Vehicle Negligence

Remember that with "joint and several liability" even if you are only 1% at fault you may have to pay 100% of the judgment.

Judgment: $23,295,000

There were other remarkable judgments in January, February, March and April, 2007. There will be more in June, July, August and the months and years ahead.

The California Law Revision Committee has posted a tentative recommendation about no contest clauses. These are the provisions in your estate plan that punish a beneficiary for suing the estate by disinheriting him or her. California has long had a...
The California Law Revision Committee has posted a tentative recommendation about no contest clauses. These are the provisions in your estate plan that punish a beneficiary for suing the estate by disinheriting him or her. California has long had a love/hate relationship with no contest clauses. While there are strong reasons to keep people from suing willy nilly when someone dies, the state is also concerned that legitimate issues get aired in court.
California changed its no contest laws just a few years ago, which is why so many of our clients needed to update that provision of their estate plan.
Now the Committee is making a further recommendation. The Committee suggests that no contest clauses should be honored in general. But there should be a big exception to protect against elder abuse, a growing problem. The Committee proposes that a new law should enable beneficiaries to make contests
where there is a significant possibility of elder abuse in a late
change of beneficiaries. This new law would protect those beneficiaries from disinheritance.
You can read the Tentative Recommendation at http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/Misc-Report/TR-L637.pdf
The proposal is to allow contests "that are brought with probable cause." As estate planners for our clients, many of whom have strong reasons to create enforceable no contest clauses, we will
be watching the case law to determine what rises to the level of
"probable cause".
Planning Tip: A long history of limiting the rights of a particular beneficiary makes enforcement of the no contest clause against that beneficiary much more likely.
The Committee's Summary follows:
"The Law Revision Commission finds that there
are good policy reasons to enforce a no contest clause. However, the existing statute has become overly complex and
is contributing to uncertainty as to whether a particular no contest clause
would apply to a contemplated action. That uncertainty has led to widespread use
of the declaratory relief procedure, adding a new layer of litigation to contest
cases. A no contest clause can also
operate to deter legitimate inquiry into cases of elder financial abuse and
fraud. An abuser may coerce or trick an elderly person into amending an estate
plan to include a gift to the abuser, combined with a no contest clause. If the
other beneficiaries contest the gift, they risk losing their own bequests. That can insulate fraud
from effective judicial review.
After
weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the no contest clause, the Commission recommends that
enforcement of a no contest clause be preserved, but that the statute be
significantly simplified. The existing
complex provisions exempting most "indirect contests" from the enforcement of a no contest clause
would be replaced with a rule limiting the enforcement of a no contest clause to a
specified list of traditional "direct
contests." The declaratory relief provisions could then be deleted as
unnecessary. Existing exceptions to enforcement for certain types of
contests that are brought with probable cause would be generalized to apply to
all direct contests. That would provide a greater opportunity for beneficiaries
to bring a direct contest based on suspected elder abuse."
[...]

On October 21, 2006, Kelly Greene answered a question in the Wall Street Journal's Encore Personal Finance section on how to name a minor child as a beneficiary of your retirement plan. I was delighted to be able to contribute...

(image)
On October 21, 2006, Kelly Greene answered a question in the Wall Street Journal's Encore Personal Finance section on how to name a minor child as a beneficiary of your retirement plan. I was delighted to be able to contribute to the answer.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the 2007 federal guidelines for how much money the spouses of institutionalized Medicaid (known in California as Medi-Cal) recipients may keep. In 2007, the spouse of a Medi-Cal recipient living...